Tag Archives: TRS-ActiveCare

Here’s how TRS legislation ended up in the 86th legislative session

As the 86th legislative session came to a close yesterday, there were some significant changes made to the Teacher Retirement System (TRS) that warrant a closer look.

TRS Pension Reform

Senate Bill (SB) 12 by Sen. Joan Huffman (R – Houston), sponsored in the House by Rep. Greg Bonnen (R – League City), was passed 31:0 in the Senate and 145:1 in the House on the last day to pass bills. The bill will immediately reduce the funding window on the Teacher Retirement System (TRS) pension from over 90 years to pay off the unfunded liability to under 30 years. Reducing the time frame to less than 30 years also allowed the legislature to provide current retirees with an additional pension payment during the current fiscal year. The 13th check, as the supplemental payment is often called, will be the amount of the retiree’s regular monthly annuity payment up to a maximum amount of $2,000.

ATPE was strongly in support of shoring up the TRS pension fund as it will ensure that the primary retirement income for many Texas educators will be viable for decades to come. The passage of SB 12 also saves the state and taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars in interest on the pension fund’s liabilities, and it puts the TRS fund in a position for policymakers to begin considering a permanent cost of living adjustment for retired educators as early as the next legislative session in 2021.

SB 12 calls for the state’s contribution to immediately increase from 6.8% to 7.5% in the 2020 fiscal year, which begins on Sept. 1, 2019. The state contribution rate will then continue to increase over time until the rate reaches 8.25% in 2024. School districts not paying into Social Security currently contribute 1.5% to the pension fund. Beginning in the 2019-20, all school districts will contribute toward TRS pensions with the district rate increasing by a tenth of a percent each year beginning in the 2021 fiscal year, until the district rate reaches 2% in 2025.  Active school employees’ contributions to TRS will remain at their existing rate of 7.7% for the next two years. Employee contributions will increase to 8% in the 2021-22 school year and 8.25% the following year.

Aside from injecting more money into the TRS pension fund, SB 12 contains a few additional provisions that are worth noting. For one, the bill maintains a provision that ensures that if the state’s contribution to TRS should decline in the future, then school district and active employee contributions to the fund would be reduced by the same percentage. It is worth noting, however, that any future legislature could vote to change this. SB 12 also includes a change for the handful of school districts that currently pay into Social Security on behalf of their employees. As noted above, those districts that opt to make Social Security contributions will no longer enjoy an exemption from paying into TRS, which Rep. Greg Bonnen said would add about $20 million per year to the fund. Only institutions of higher education will now be exempt from participating in contributing into the TRS pension fund for their covered employees.

Here is a summary of the details provided by TRS staff on how the final adopted version of SB 12 is funded over time:

 

TRS Healthcare

ATPE hoped that the conference committees for SB 12 and House Bill 3, the omnibus school finance bill that also passed, would find better ways to help active and retired teachers deal with the rising costs of their healthcare. There were internal discussions about increasing the state share of active employee health insurance costs. Currently, the state pays $75 per month toward premiums and requires school districts to pay a minimum of $150 per month on behalf of their staff. Employees cover the rest of the cost of their health insurance premiums. SB 12 significantly increases the state’s share of contributions going into the TRS pension system, and the final version of HB 3 does require districts to spend additional dollars on employee compensation (which could include increasing the district’s share of health insurance costs). Despite these improvements, neither bill addressed the inadequacies of the state’s share of active employee premiums in the end.

State lawmakers did make good on their pre-session promises not to raise TRS-Care rates for retiree health insurance. The state budget in House Bill 1 includes $230 million in supplemental funding to cover the projected shortfall in the TRS-Care trust fund. State leaders pushed TRS not to raise rates last fall when it became apparent that the amount of the shortfall for the upcoming biennium was going to be less than originally projected. The savings were largely due a combination of successful TRS contract negotiations and favorable provisions of the federal Affordable Healthcare Act taking effect. Unfortunately, barring a substantial change in the healthcare landscape, the projected shortfall for the 2022-2023 biennium is much larger than what lawmakers had to deal with this session to address the shortfall expected for the next two years.

TRS releases ActiveCare rates for 2020

The board of trustees for the Teacher Retirement System (TRS) of Texas met in Austin this week. Of note on their agenda was a discussion of proposed TRS-ActiveCare pricing for 2020.

Overall, the premiums for all ActiveCare plans will be increased by 3.9 percent on average, which is significantly lower than market averages, with the average increase for the ActiveCare I – High Deductible plan and ActiveCare Select at 3 percent and the increase for the ActiveCare II plan at 8.9 percent.

Note: ActiveCare II was closed to new enrollees after the 2018 plan year.

You can see the exact premium increases and benefits changes for the different coverage options on the attached rate card, or for more in-depth information, view the TRS Benefits Committee board board book at pages 16-31.

If you have questions about TRS-ActiveCare plans, visit the TRS-ActiveCare web page or call 1-800-222-9205.

House Public Education Committee hears bills on home-schooler UIL participation, health and safety, and more

On Thursday, April 4, 2019, the House Public Education Committee met to hear bills on several topics, including home-schooled students’ participation in UIL, student health, protected speech, and the available school fund.

ATPE supported several of the bills on yesterday’s committee agenda:

  • House Bill (HB) 348 (Nevárez, et al., D-Eagle Pass): Would allow school districts to provide increased compensation to a teacher who completes an autism training provided by a regional education service center. This bill was not actually heard by the committee yesterday due to a last-minute change.
  • HB 1602 (Hernandez, D-Houston): States that a school district may not begin instruction before 8 am and calls for appropriating over $755 million to the Texas Education Agency (TEA) for the purpose of offsetting the additional transportation costs associated with the bill. Rep. Hernandez said that 34% of Texas schools start in the 7 am hour, and some students wait in the dark for the bus as early as 5:45 am. A student testified for the bill, saying it would help her get more sleep and receive less disciplinary action. ATPE member Yen Rabe also testified in support as one of several witnesses who cited increased safety and student well-being if the school day were to start later.
  • HB 2738 (Meyer, R-Dallas): Would expand educator misconduct provisions adopted through SB 7 from the 2017 legislative session to also include non-certified employees, such as those who may work in charter schools and Districts of Innovation. The bill would require TEA to create a “do-not-hire” registry of these non-certified persons.

ATPE registered in opposition to HB 1324 by Rep. James Frank (R-Wichita Falls), which would require public schools participating in UIL activities to provide home-schooled students who meet certain eligibility requirements with the opportunity to participate in the activity. Districts would likely incur costs from this mandate, and HB 1324 does not ensure that home-schooled students would be subject to the same requirements and thus on a level playing field with their public school peers. Testimony on this bill was split between those who had concerns about implementation, costs to public schools, and increased government oversight, and those who wanted to be able to participate in UIL activities, especially sports. Read ATPE’s written testimony against the bill here.

The following bills were also heard by the committee yesterday:

  • HB 873 (Allen, D-Houston): Would require the admission, review, and dismissal (ARD) committee to review students’ behavior intervention plans (BIPs) at least annually for those who have a BIP as part of their individualized education plan (IEP). This bill also requires changes to the student code of conduct, including parent notification about the student’s BIP or if the student needs a BIP when violations of the code occur, and it changes law around the use of restraints and time-outs, requiring detailed notification to parents. Lastly, the bill requires that if a school district takes disciplinary action against a student with disabilities that results in a change in placement, the district must conduct a behavioral assessment and develop or revise the student’s BIP.
  • HB 1131 (Cole, et al., D-Austin): Would create the “Texas Public Finance Authority” to act as a “paying agent” under current law for the guarantee and payment of bonds. School districts could also borrow money from the new authority.
  • HB 1906 (Burns, R-Cleburne): Would allow a parent of a student with severe cognitive disabilities to request that the child be exempted from required assessments. The ARD committee would make further determinations on whether the student should be exempted and what the best assessment instrument for the child would be. Special education advocates testified about concerns with making sure someone is still held accountable for growth and progress of these students, and argued that assessments should be fixed rather than removing students from taking assessments altogether.
  • HB 2097 (Krause, et al., R-Fort Worth): This bill would allow only Arlington ISD to withdraw from TRS-ActiveCare under a pilot project. Representatives of the school district testified that healthcare costs for its employees under TRS are too high, but members of the committee were cautious and indicated there should be more study on statewide impact before allowing one district to have special treatment.
  • HB 2244 (González, M., D-Clint): Would define what is protected speech and require school districts to adopt a policy establishing rules regarding students’ right to exercise freedom of the press at school. Testimony supporting the bill included remarks from students, teachers, a professor, and a lawyer.
  • HB 2393 (Burrows, R-Lubbock): Would require the State Board of Education (SBOE) and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) to develop a hunter education course for students in grades 7-12 that a school district can use as a part of its physical education curriculum. Rep. Burrows stated that there are barriers to children being able to take hunter education and that many violations have been committed by hunters, presumably as a result of lack of education.
  • HB 2555 (Parker, R-Flower Mound): Would update the guidelines on food allergies and require school boards and governing bodies of charters to update their policies on caring for students with food allergies who are at risk of anaphylaxis.
  • HB 2689 (Dean, et al., R-Longview): Would require each school superintendent to designate a cybersecurity coordinator to serve as a liaison between the district and TEA. Rep. Dean stated that student data, such as social security numbers, are particularly valuable and in need of protection.
  • HB 2739 (Meyer, et al., R-Dallas): Would require private school administrators to report misconduct by educators they employ to the State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC) and allow them to obtain information from SBEC any reports the board has about prior misconduct or criminal histories of such individuals.
  • HB 2740 (Meyer, et al., R-Dallas): Would require the Department of Family and Protective Services to release information regarding child abuse and neglect investigations and allegations to private schools, as it does for public schools.
  • HB 3683 (Dutton, D-Houston): Would allow the commissioner to authorize a charter or campus program to provide a dropout recovery program for grades 9-12, at which 50% of the enrollment must be students who are age 17 or older. Eligible students would include those who have dropped out or been in a disciplinary alternative education setting, as well as homeless students, working students, asylees and refugees, or at parent request. Charter school advocates testified that the bill would improve student retention and completion.
  • HB 4205 (Craddick, R-Midland): Would allow repurposed campuses to be operated in partnership with certain nonprofits that have a successful record of operating a campus or charter. Former Speaker Craddick stated that a school slated for closure has only two options (close the campus or appoint a board of managers), and his bill offers a third option by allowing non-profit charters to partner with the school district to reopen the school. TEA General Counsel Von Byer said the campus would still have to be closed and repurposed, and that the repurposed campus would have to serve a majority of new students and offer a distinctly different academic program.
  • HB 4613 (Shaheen, R-Plano): Would allow parents to request an exemption from state and federal testing requirements for special education students, potentially through a federal waiver. Special education advocates testified with concerns on meeting federal reporting requirements and having accountability for all students, including those with disabilities.
  • HB 4611 (Huberty, R-Humble) and its related House Joint Resolution (HJR) 151 (Huberty, R-Humble): Would propose a constitutional amendment to allow the General Land Office’s (GLO) School Land Board to transfer up to $600 million to the available school fund. The current allowable contribution is only $300 million. Testimony from both the GLO and from Dr. Keven Ellis of the SBOE was neutral, focused on finding avenues to increase funds to the available school fund.

The following pending bills heard during prior meetings were voted favorably from committee on Thursday: HB 851, HB 1026, HB 1517, HB 1639, HB 1640, HB 1823, HB 2511, HB 2984, HB 3007, HB 3217, HB 3323, HB 3435, HB 3966, HCR 59, HB 843, HB 1160, HB 1276, HB 1632, HB 2030, HB 2184, HB 4310, and HB 2210.

The House Public Education Committee will meet again on Tuesday, April 9, 2019, to hear a variety of bills, mostly pertaining to charter schools.

TRS board meeting in Austin this week

The Teacher Retirement System (TRS) board was in Austin for their regularly scheduled board meeting on Thursday and Friday of this week. The board kicked off its hearing with a resolution celebrating the life and service of Mike Lehr, former executive director of the Texas Retired Teachers Association with more than 50 years working as a public school educator or on behalf of active or retired public school educators.

Also of note, TRS executive director Brian Guthrie updated the board on interactions TRS has had with legislators as a part of the ongoing legislative session. TRS recently presented on its general outlook and budgetary requests before both House and Senate budget committees as well as the House Pensions Committee. The agency will still have one more general presentation to the Senate State Affairs Committee, and then the agency role will shift to assisting lawmakers more behind the scenes.

The remainder of the first day’s morning session covered topics such as internal staffing policy, customer service, and how the agency communicates with TRS members. Thursday afternoon the board underwent ethics training and had an in-depth discussion of healthcare and healthcare design related to the TRS-Care and TRS-ActiveCare insurance programs.

The board’s Friday agenda focused on the TRS investment program, including the agency’s emerging manger program, a view of national and global financial trends, and TRS’s own strategic asset allocation.

Those who are interested can watch an archive of the board’s Thursday meeting and Friday meeting.

 

House Appropriations hears from TEA and TRS

The House Committee on Appropriations met Monday to hear from the Texas Education Agency (TEA) and Teacher Retirement System (TRS) on the issues of school safety, school finance, the teacher pension system, and active and retiree educator health insurance. Before delving into the meat of the hearing, Cmomittee Chairman John Zerwas (R-Fulsher) also announced membership of the subcommittees that will be overseeing separate subject areas of the budget.

The subcommittee on Article III that oversees public education funding will be chaired by Rep. Greg Bonnen, and include Vice-chair Armando Walle and Reps. Mary Gonzalez, Donna Howard, Matt Schaefer, Carl Sherman, Lynn Stucky, and Gary VanDeaver.

House Appropriations Committee meeting Feb. 4, 2019

Other subcommittees include: the subcommittee on Articles I, IV, V; the subcommittee on Article II; the subcommittee on Articles VI, VII, VIII; and a new subcommittee on  Infrastructure, Resiliency, and Investment.

The committee heard first from Texas Education  Commissioner Mike Morath on the topic of school safety, including physical precautions such as metal detectors and alarms. Morath noted there is no single investment in school safety that will address all current weaknesses and that the agency isn’t and hasn’t traditionally been tasked or resourced to help districts with regard to mental health components of school safety.

TEA’s Chief School Finance Officer Leo Lopez followed with a high-level overview of how public schools are funded. Lopez explained how the basics of tax rates, weights, allotments, and adjustments work to together to create a districts M&O entitlement; facilities funding; charter funding; and recapture. Also mentioned during the discussion were statutory quirks and system complexities like the fact that the basic allotment is set in statute, but legislators each session have the option of funding at higher levels through the appropriations bill. The committee also discussed how in 2011 the legislature created a mechanism called the Regular Program Adjustment Factor that allows lawmakers to decrease the entire Foundation School Program (FSP) entitlement for every district with a single adjustment.

TR) Executive Director Brian Guthrie walked committee members through pension fund operations. Guthrie explained the TRS board’s decision to lower the assumed rate of return last summer to 7.25 percent down from 8 percent, which came as a result of market forecasts and input from the fund’s actuary. This caused the funding period for pension fund liabilities to extend from 32 years up to 87 years. Under state law, the TRS fund cannot offer a cost of living adjustment (COLA) to retirees unless the amortization period noted above is within 31 years.

Guthrie noted that the agency is requesting a 1.8 percent increase in the contribution rate in order to achieve a 30-year amortization period, which would allow for the possibility of a future increase in benefits, such as a COLA. This would cost $1.6 billion for the biennium from all funds.

Responding to a question from Rep. Giovanni Capriglione, Guthrie estimated the average pension payment for a TRS annuitant to be about $2,000 per month. This average figure covers all classes of public education employees, including auxiliary staff, such as bus drivers and custodial staff. For classroom teachers who have worked in Texas schools for 30 years, that amount is closer to $4,000 per month.

Guthrie then explained the healthcare programs under the agency’s umbrella: TRS-Care for retired educators and TRS-ActiveCare for active educators. Healthcare costs have skyrocketed in Texas, despite rising at a level slightly below the national average. This resulted in a $1 billion shortfall for TRS-Care heading into the previous legislative session, which was addressed by a temporary infusion of additional state funding, coupled with a significant increase in fees and reduction in benefits. The fund continues to run at a deficit.

Rep. Schaefer asked what impact a pay increase would have on the pension fund. Guthrie indicated that if all teachers saw a raise, there would be a negative short-term impact for TRS as a result of higher salary calculations for retiring members without the benefit of higher contributions. Guthrie suggested this could be mitigated by phasing in the salary increases’ impact on the calculation of a member’s highest five years of earnings. Guthrie suggested the short-term impact on TRS-Care would be positive.

Asked by Rep. Stucky how much it would cost to make TRS-Care sustainable, Guthrie suggested it would take more than $12-15 billion to create a corpus sufficient to produce funding as a result of investment returns. Even then, that process would take some time to get up and running. The deteriorating value of TRS-Care has led many retirees to leave the program, which exacerbates the financial stresses facing it. Guthrie added that the population was beginning to stabilize.

TRS-ActiveCare, which allows smaller and mid-size school districts to enjoy the benefits of group coverage through a combined risk pool, also faces affordability challenges due to statutory restrictions on how that program is funded. Five percent of districts – primarily the state’s largest districts, such as Austin and Houston – have opted out of TRS-ActiveCare. Last session, legislation was considered to allow districts a one-time opportunity to opt in or opt out, but such a bill was not passed ultimately.

House committee discusses teacher pensions, health care

The House Committee on Pensions met Thursday morning in Dallas to discuss items listed under the committee’s interim charges, including the Teacher Retirement System (TRS) of Texas.

The committee met in the chambers of the Dallas City Council, which oversees pensions for the city’s police and firefighters that have come under scrutiny as of late. Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings was the first witness to testify, thanking the committee for legislation dealing with issues pertaining to Dallas police and firefighter pensions and updating members on changes the city has put in place since the legislation’s passage.

House Pensions Committee meeting May 10, 2018 in Dallas.

Executive Director Brian Guthrie testified for TRS, laying out the basics of the $152 billion trust fund that serves 1.5 million active and retired members. The fund earned a return of 12.6 percent for fiscal year (FY) 2017, under an assumed rate of return of 8 percent. The fund carries $35.5 billion of unfunded liability and is 80.5 percent funded with an amortization period of 32.2 years, which Guthrie noted will change if the assumed rate of return is lowered. TRS manages two major healthcare programs: TRS-ActiveCare for active teachers and TRS-Care for retirees. Guthrie testified that TRS undertook a study in 2013 looking at the fund’s defined benefit structure, and will be producing an updated study this fall.

Turning to health care, Guthrie described TRS-Care as a “pay as you go plan.” The state’s contribution to the plan is 1.25 percent of active employee payroll, while school districts contribute .75 of active employee payroll and active employees contribute .65 percent of their paycheck. Retirees contribute to the plan through premiums. The plan faced a $1 billion projected budget shortfall heading into the last legislative session, and lawmakers of the 85th Texas Legislature put $700 million into the system in order to keep the fund from folding. While the infusion was able to prevent retirees from losing their health care, it wasn’t enough to avoid increases in costs and reductions in benefits.

Even with the changes, which included increasing premiums, the fund faces a $400-600 shortfall heading into the next biennium and ongoing shortfalls moving forward. Guthrie attributed the increase to legislation accompanying the added funding that directed the agency to ease cost increases. Guthrie indicated the primary problem is with the fundamental design of the funding formula, noting that healthcare costs are increasing far more quickly than revenue received from active employee payroll, which is the basis for the funding formula.

The largest cost increases are associated with plans that include coverage for dependents, and TRS initially offered retirees the option of permanently leaving TRS-Care for an insurance plan on the private market. Chairman Dan Flynn (R-Canton), members of the committee and legislators representing the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex pressed Guthrie to find a way to protect benefits, in particular prescription drug costs. Guthrie testified that the agency is studying all possible avenues, but the fund design presents the largest challenge.

Finally, Guthrie explained TRS-ActiveCare as a group insurance program for small to midsize school districts that would be otherwise unable to provide their own insurance programs. The state provides $75 per member, per month through the school finance formulas, districts contribute a minimum of $150 per month, and individual members are responsible for the remainder. Minimum state and district contribution levels have not changed since the plan’s inception in 2002, and employees’ share of the premiums has increased to 60 percent from 30 percent over the last 14 years. Because of rising healthcare costs, TRS board members voted at their most recent meeting to raise premiums for individual members between five and nine percent, or seven percent on average.

Because TRS-ActiveCare is funded through the school finance formulas, Guthrie suggested that any changes to TRS-ActiveCare would best be addressed as part of lawmakers’ broader efforts to reform the school finance system.

House Public Education Committee Chairman Dan Huberty (R-Houston) sharply questioned Guthrie over the board’s anticipated July vote to lower the fund’s assumed rate of return to 7.5 percent from 8.0 percent, despite returning 12.6 percent for FY 2017. This would cost an additional $1.2 billion on top of the $400-600 extra needed for TRS-Care, for a total ask of $1.6 billion on top of the $3 billion in base funding already designated for TRS. Guthrie testified that the agency’s fiduciary responsibility requires staff to provide an accurate estimate of what the fund is anticipated to produce.

A representative from Arlington ISD asked the board to consider allowing school districts with more than 1,000 employees to opt out of TRS-ActiveCare and provide their own insurance programs, pointing out that family healthcare costs under the TRS-ActiveCare high-deductible plan could account for more than a third of a first-year teacher’s annual salary. Chairman Huberty noted that such an arrangement could adversely impact TRS funding by reducing the broader pool of active TRS members.

Texas Retired Teachers Association (TRTA) Executive Director Tim Lee thanked the Texas Legislature for making the minimum changes necessary to keep TRS-Care from failing entirely. Lee suggested that 14 years may have been too long to go without increasing premiums, and pointed to the Employee Retirement System (ERS) as an appropriate benchmark for TRS. Going forward, Lee testified the only long-term solution is pre-funding the program, which would be even more costly than migrating TRS members to ERS. Lee indicated that retirees will be unable to countenance further cost increases, and noted that 36,400 people have decided to leave TRS-Care for the individual market.

Staff from the Pension Review Board (PRB) testified regarding the agency’s efforts to improve defined benefit programs. The board has ordered staff to develop an online dashboard of Texas public pension data, to study potential legislative recommendations regarding how systems whose funding is set by legislative statute can respond to changes in market systems, to study how systems of scale could be utilized to improve groups of smaller plans, and to conduct intensive actuarial reviews of systems with risk that threaten their long-term stability. PRB staff noted that ERS has already lowered its estimated rate of return to 7.5 percent from 8 percent, which TRS is currently contemplating.

The committee then opened the table to public testimony, and dozens of retired teachers voiced their concerns regarding healthcare and the defined benefit structure of the TRS pension program. Many shared heartbreaking stories of seeing fixed incomes virtually consumed by skyrocketing premiums even before paying the increased costs for services and medication. Retirees also expressed concerns regarding changes to the assumed rate of return.

 

Showdown at TRS quarterly board meeting

The TRS board met for its quarterly meeting in in Austin this week. Per the board’s new schedule all subcommittee meetings were held on Thursday, April 19, with the full board meeting today, Friday, April 20.

Thursday’s subcommittee meetings included the Benefits Committee; the Budget Committee; the Strategic Planning Committee; the Policy Committee; the Audit, Compliance and Ethics Committee; and the Investment Management Committee. Committee agendas are attached in the links above.

Perhaps most significant among the committee discussion was the recommendation of new rates and policy design for TRS-ActiveCare for the 2019/20 school year. ActiveCare is a pass-through program, meaning the amount of money coming in from the state is fixed and any additional expense to run the plan is passed through directly to ActiveCare participants. In addition to some level of recommended increase for each of the ActiveCare plans, the staff recommended that enrollment for ActiveCare-2, the traditional PPO plan, be capped to existing participants. The Benefits Committee moved to recommend the staff recommendations to the full board, which adopted those recommendations during their Friday meeting. More detail about each of the ActiveCare plans including costs can be found in tab 3 of the attached Benefits Committee Board book.

Other committee highlights included a discussion of the need for increased authorization to hire additional full time employees (FTEs). The additional FTEs would primarily be utilized to increase staffing (and decrease wait times) in the TRS call center, as well as to continue providing for the midrange staffing needs associated with TRS’s efforts to update its technology infrastructure, known as project TEAM. The new Strategic Planning Committee also held a lengthy conversation with TRS’s new director of communications. In laying out her vision, she emphasized being more proactive and less reactive in the agency’s communications.

The full board began its meeting today by taking public testimony. A number of active and retired educators were present to testify, as well as governmental relations professionals from three of the four statewide teacher groups (including ATPE) and Tim Lee, the executive director of the Texas Retired Teachers Association. By and large the testimony was focused on the board’s upcoming decision to change the expected rate of return on the pension fund later on today’s agenda, as well as personal stories of the real world consequences of changes made to the TRS-Care health insurance program. The TRS members expressed compelling arguments that the expected rate of return should not be lowered at all from the current 8 percent mark. Organizational testifiers were in agreement that lowering the rate from 8 percent to 7.25 percent was overly aggressive, and all supported a much more gradual approach to lower the rate, starting with dropping it first to 7.75 percent.

After public testimony concluded, the rate of return discussion was the first item taken up by the board. TRS executive director Brain Guthrie presented the staff position, which heavily favored a rate of 7.25 percent. At the end of that discussion, one of the board members appointed to represent TRS members moved to set the rate at 7.5 percent. The motion failed on a vote of four to four. Then one of the board members appointed from the financial sector moved to set the rate at 7.25 percent. That motion also failed on a vote of four to four. At that point the board postponed further action on the item until its July board meeting, and the board moved on to consideration of the rest of its Friday agenda.

You can watch an archive of the full Thursday committee meeting here and the full Friday board meeting, including public testimony, here.